Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

A.Z. v. NIELSEN

District of MassachusettsPatti B. SarisDecided October 23, 2018No. 1:18-cv-10511

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
While some of the relief sought raises jurisdictional issues (like the request for an order to bar removal), Plaintiff primarily challenges USCIS’s initial no-show designation immediately following her interview.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed her Form I-589 Application for Asylum with USCIS on December 27, 2017.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
While some of the relief sought raises jurisdictional issues (like the request for an order to bar removal), Plaintiff primarily challenges USCIS’s initial no-show designation immediately following her interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20).
Months pending 9.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed her Form I-589 Application for Asylum with USCIS on December 27, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-10511
Filed
March 16, 2018
Ended
October 23, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
221 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and First Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.